conworldfandomcom-20200222-history
Forum:Bureaucrat Consensus: Vivaporius
}} Please vote here on the consensus on whether to elevate myself, Vivaporius, to bureaucrat. To vote, simply edit your choice's header and place your signature along with any statements or comments you would like to make in support your decision (this is optional). Voting will end once a plurality is achieved. Question: Should become a bureaucrat? Second vote Support *I endorse myself. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 18:21, February 19, 2018 (UTC) *--JoshTheRoman 18:25, February 19, 2018 (UTC) *--TheOneMadman (talk) 20:20, February 19, 2018 (UTC) Once again, I vote to support Viva. I'm pretty sure my statements on discord made that clear. I believe this time my status as a "Conworlder" may come into question, however, and I would like to clear things up. I joined the conworlds Discord a while ago, and while I am aware that does not count as contributing, I do feel I have bonded with the community. I have been working on my personal project for two years now, and am still continuing to update it daily using lose-leaf notes and other things. I have recently joined Project Genesis as a minor contributor and will continue to help flesh out the Project and the Republic of Ofnir. I have several reasons I do not publish my personal world and even my Ofnir edits, including lack of details as of yet, frustration with Wikia's editing tools, doubts about my writing quality, among others. I still fell I am a relatively active, albeit passive, contributor of the Wiki, helping when I can, asking for help when needed. If Centri does not agree, I completely understand and will rescind my vote. However, for the time being, I vote in favor of Viva. *I continue backing Viva. 09:32, February 20, 2018 (UTC) *NikkPro (talk) 14:20, February 20, 2018 (UTC) Abstain *After consideration of and looking at this request from all angles, I have rescinded by vote of support. My views are now aligned with that of Goldentrash and Centrist, I do not believe that there is any need for a second bureaucrat on this wiki. I understand I once said "leaving the ultimate power with one individual is unsafe" but I realized if that ever happens (it never will as long as Centrist is here), us the community, will stand up to any abusive bureaucrat. The community here is the real power behind the "throne", so my worries are no longer extant. If the wiki continues it's growth, I believe a second bureaucrat will be needed and I believe many of us in the community will turn to you, Viva. God bless. CnocBride (Talk Page) 18:51, February 19, 2018 (UTC) *Personally I am neither for nor against Vivaporius becoming a Bureaucrat. Considering there are many more knowledgeable and senior members of this wiki who will be voting, I believe their collective decision for or against will be the best one for the community at present. As such, I will abstain from this vote. Best of luck, Viva. Javants (talk) 20:52, February 19, 2018 (UTC) *I don't really care, to be honest. So I'll abstain this time around. AWpCR (talk) 03:50, February 21, 2018 (UTC) Oppose *Once again, I am not convinced we are in need of a second bureaucrat. [[User:Goldentrash| ]] [[User talk:Bowwow828| ]] [[Isokyria| ]] 18:30, February 19, 2018 (UTC) * �� Horned King 18:58, February 19, 2018 (UTC) * [[User:Centrist16| ]] 19:08, February 19, 2018 (UTC) *My opinion has not changed -- 19:15, February 19, 2018 (UTC) * * No need --카와이카매 (카와이카매) 05:08, February 21, 2018 (UTC) *Opposing as before, but very close to abstaining though. horton11 15:07, February 22, 2018 (UTC) Decision for the second vote A week has passed and I will now formally conclude this vote; I uphold the same decision I made for the first vote for this. [[User:Centrist16| ]] 06:25, February 27, 2018 (UTC) First vote Support *--Horned King 18:03, February 14, 2018 (UTC) *NikkPro (talk) 18:14, February 14, 2018 (UTC) * While I do believe Centrist16 has managed this wiki well and he has always made me and many others feel welcome on Conworlds, I do believe that a second bureaucrat would be healthier for the wiki community and I believe Vivaporius is an excellent contributor to this wiki. He produces high quality articles and works hard on all his projects. I support this elevation. CnocBride (Talk Page) 12:37, February 15, 2018 (UTC) * (talk) 06:27, February 16, 2018 (UTC) *--JoshTheRoman *AWpCR (talk) 16:48, February 16, 2018 (UTC) * Kostdanila (talk) 22:25, February 16, 2018 (UTC) * 22:42, February 16, 2018 (UTC) *Javants 7:06, February 17, 2018 (UTC) *'Majin Super Buu' (talk) 20:02, February 17, 2018 (UTC) *--TheOneMadman (talk) 20:35, February 17, 2018 (UTC) I believe that having two active bureaucrats will allow this wiki more flexibility overall. I know that Centri is still active, but having two bureaucrats can help this wiki and its administration grow. Furthermore, there may be times where bureaucrat support may be needed and Centri might not be available. Therefore, I support this. * Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 22:11, February 17, 2018 (UTC) I endorse myself. *[[User:Saturn1257|'Sat']] (Talk to me!) 03:26, February 18, 2018 (UTC) *XLjackbot (talk) 16:50, February 18, 2018 (UTC) Abstain *Bel of the illusions 02:33, February 16, 2018 (UTC) *Withholding judgment until further notice [[User:Centrist16| ]] 06:44, February 16, 2018 (UTC) Oppose * [[User:Goldentrash| ]] [[User talk:Bowwow828| ]] [[Isokyria| ]] 17:59, February 14, 2018 (UTC) * We already have a bureaucrat who is unlike his predecessor active. Another one is an excess especially if said one is already an administrator. --Cheers Sweet potato tastes good,[[User talk:Dog of War|''' I like it']] 11:15, February 15, 2018 (UTC) * *Oh, I didn't mean to push that button! † Oh, well leave a message I guess 02:11, February 16, 2018 (UTC) *--[카와이카매 (카와이카매talk) 02:54, February 16, 2018 (UTC) *Don't see the need for one atm. horton11 16:19, February 16, 2018 (UTC) *User: Lord falconis * 07:26, February 17, 2018 (UTC) *Although I like Viva and enjoy his extensive contributions to the wiki, I do not feel it is appropriate at the time being for the wiki to have another bureaucrat. The sole purpose of a bureaucrat is to promote or demote existing administrators, and to act as the final arbiter for wiki/community decisions. At this time, the wiki administration is not extensive enough to warrant the need for an additional bureaucrat, nor would it be appropriate to have two when I am still very much active (the same could not be said for the previous ''de facto head bureaucrat). However, I will respect the community decision, whatever it will be! [[User:Centrist16| ]] 07:35, February 17, 2018 (UTC) * 11:31, February 17, 2018 (UTC) *Fires *SolaceEaSw (talk) 20:07, February 17, 2018 (UTC) * Comments *I would just like to give my two cents on the matter. While I was originally going to abstain from this vote, I decided that a second bureaucrat would be appropriate. I do agree with Centrist's comments that the wiki administration is not extensive enough for a second bureaucrat, I disagree with the fact that the role of an arbitrator should be left in the hands of one person. Many of you reading this may now think "Oh he doesn't trust Centrist" or something along those lines, I can tell you with 100% honesty, I believe Centrist is one of the most proficient wiki bureaucrats I have ever encountered. I just believe it would be fairer to have two bureaucrats leading the administration rather than one. Viva, like Centrist, is a fine writer and always rises to perfection when it comes to his articles. I always enjoy reading them and they serve as inspiration to me and many others. Thank You. CnocBride (Talk Page) 21:04, February 17, 2018 (UTC) *I wish to clarify my vote and concur with Dog of War and Centrist16 that I do not believe there is sufficient cause to elevate Vivaporius to bureaucrat status. Furthermore, it is very clear from correspondence on the Discord channel that this effort to promote Vivaporius was initiated by Pelicary, a long-time critic and rival of Vivaporius. Therefore, I do not think this vote was started in good faith but merely out of personal politics. In April 2017 I created a similar thread on the forums asking for consensus on whether to promote myself to bureaucrat and although I received two votes in favor, and one opposed, the consensus was there was no need for another bureaucrat at that time, which I respected. Nothing has changed since then; Centrist is still very active and participatory in the Wiki. His elevation was in response to the inactivity of TimeMaster. If, at any point Centrist were to similarly become inactive, I would very much reconsider Vivaporius' candidacy. Until that time, however, I see no reason to overrun the wiki with top-level moderators (possibly creating a "too many chiefs" scenario) especially when, as Dog of War pointed out, the candidate already has admin-powers which are in essence the same as bureaucrat for most administrative reasons. I would also like to remind the wiki that consensus threads are just that: a forum for consensus-building. They are not democratic votes. Seeing as how there is both substantial support and opposition for this measure, it is clear the community is very divided on the issue and therefore does not constitute a consensus. Because of this, I would hope that the status quo will default. [[User:Goldentrash| ]] [[User talk:Bowwow828| ]] [[Isokyria| ]] 21:53, February 17, 2018 (UTC) *I believe that it should be noted that this is a democratic vote by the community, not a consensus-building form. While it may be enticing to say that is the case based on the naming of this particular article, I would remind you that Centrist himself attained his current position via the exact same method. "Bureaucrat Consensus" is a fancy way of saying "election of a new bureaucrat", and is a democratic method of choosing a new member of that group. As for the initiation of this vote by Pelicary, though you may personally believe him and I to be rivals, I do not hold him in such status, and have actively and consistently stated that I hold no animus toward him and regard him as a sterling example of an active contributor. I do not know what personal politics you have with him yourself, but as far as he and I are concerned, I harbor no hostility toward him, nor do I actively seek to incite him for whatever petty reasons may be considered. Currently, it is the acknowledgement of most who support my candidacy that having two bureaucrats is both fair and necessary, as Centrist can't always be around to assist everyone, especially as the community is growing, and Centrist himself has stated as much that my own status as a veteran of the wiki (predating even himself), both as a coder, contributor, and member of the community, are worthy prerequisites for me becoming a bureaucrat. While you may have your own reservations for me becoming a bureaucrat, with the community approaching at least 35-plus members, one bureaucrat who may fall off the radar one day is not a favorable outcome for Conworlds to contend with. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 22:08, February 17, 2018 (UTC) **Status as a veteran shouldn't be a reason for bureaucratship, or else I would be one by now given my years here. It also seems that Justin has been around since before you. If you became admin I'm sure you'd do fine, but I don't think at this point a second bureaucrat is needed. horton11 22:29, February 17, 2018 (UTC) **Centrist obtained his position through a clear community consensus. He had six supports and one soft oppose. That is a margin far more indicative that his promotion had the support of the community as a whole than a dead 11-11 (not including your own vote) split. Currently, it is the acknowledgement by most who oppose your candidacy that two bureaucrats is unnecessary. Again, this does not represent a consensus. The community is very split on this issue, unlike Centrist which had overwhelming support of the participants. When the community cannot agree, the status quo should default. [[User:Goldentrash| ]] [[User talk:Bowwow828| ]] [[Isokyria| ]] 22:34, February 17, 2018 (UTC) **While you are indeed correct that time itself is not a qualifying marker, it is what you do with that time that matters. I have actively worked over the last six years to increase the quality of the wiki's code, content, and character. I gave the Monobook version of this wiki a complete overhaul to give it a polished appearance rather than it original "second-hand" appearance, I revamped much of the code on the wiki to make its infoboxes, navboxes, and modules run much better and increase the quality of the interface, and have actively encouraged a better quality control practice prior to the rise of the CQC. I spent my time as a veteran of the wiki actively helping it to become better for both contributors and visitors, and have served as a mediator when and wherever possible. As to Justin's time here, he was inactive for many years, prior to him contributing again around 2015. I had been active from the first day I came here, and have grown much in that period of time. Not to take away from Justin's contributions, but I have spent more time here as an active contributor than himself, a fact to which Justin himself has agreed. As to the issue of support, though you speak of "consensus", many of those voting against me aren't even active members of this wiki. While all of my support has come from active contributors on the wiki, three of your own - Sky, Nate, and Rimp - aren't even active here, yet you have included all of them as apart of this community. Justin was elected at a time when we had no other bureaucrats and the one we did have was on his way out. Circumstances have changed, and this isn't "consensus" as you seek to push naming of this forum, but acquiring a second bureaucrat as a safeguard. And of note is one particular statement I was given: :::"it'll die" :::"soon enough tho" :::"I find it infuriating" :::"that" :::"they support Viva one second" :::"then the other" :::"they hide in #cqc and rant abt him" ::You speak of consensus and personal politics, but according to this statement made above, it was clear that you began turning to external votes to prevent me from becoming a bureaucrat. I make no extraordinary claims about the reasoning behind the politics of the issue, but I find it strangely bewildering that you would attempt to inflate the opposition of this community by bringing in outside votes from individuals who had no history with this wiki. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 22:46, February 17, 2018 (UTC) **The exact same can be said of your supporters. One, Maijin Super Buu, literally their created account today solely to vote on this thread and has no participation in any other wikis. If I didn't know better I would say this is a sockpuppet. Dog of War, Centrist, Candies, and myself are all active users. Besides, if most users voting here are not actually active users, that shows that the wiki is not actually growing and therefore does not necessitate the addition of another bureaucrat. [[User:Goldentrash| ]] [[User talk:Bowwow828| ]] [[Isokyria| ]] 22:56, February 17, 2018 (UTC) **Majin is indeed a new user who, according to what I found, is active on Althistory wiki. But you point to a single individual who arrived to vote. All of the others are active members here and on the Conworlds Discord, and have a history going back years. If we remove the 4 non-native voters, we still have at least 25-30 members on this wiki, rather than the 35-plus members I originally made note of. Likewise, I find it interesting that you find issue with the single new user voting for me, but nothing wrong with the fact that according to the statement made by a CQC member, many of those opposing me were actively courted to vote against me. I find that far more concerning. Removing your inflated opposition votes, I have the clear majority support of active members on this site, which makes your attempt to fight this as much as you are likewise concerning. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 23:01, February 17, 2018 (UTC) :: I do agree with Goldentrash in the regard to Maijin. Whoever they are hasn't been a member of the Conworld's community for long enough to vote but there's no rule against it, so oh well. CnocBride (Talk Page) 01:45, February 18, 2018 (UTC) Decision for first vote :This decision will be superseded by the outcome of the second vote. – Before you accuse the opposition for being engineered or inflated, don't pretend you haven't reached out to "outside votes from individuals who had no history with this wiki" as well. Although GB is a member on our Discord, he is by no means a contributor to the wiki and by his own admission, was asked to vote on a matter he had no idea what it was really about. Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with this. In fact, there are no rules against courting people to support you as Cnoc pointed out. It is equally suspicious when one-edit contributors ( and as of this writing) vote on a random wiki's internal decision-making process, especially when said process doesn't even appear on the wiki announcements, index, or wiki activity box. I'll let people speak for themselves on who, why, and how they voted. However, when you construe the opposition as though it is the only one undertaking this tactic, it is entirely dishonest and unfair. What we've seen so far hasn't been a clear consensus. If anything, it has only shown itself to be an inherently decisive and polarizing issue. That there is a large amount of users participating who aren't even active contributors to the wiki is indeed concerning (it is my hope that they would join us), and reveals that the issue has become quite politicized and deviates from the spirit of consensus-building. For the record, Conworlds is not a true democracy. Wikis function base on arbitration and consensus. My promotion to bureaucrat status was not based on democratic decision, but consensus as defined and requested by the previous bureaucrat. This example here shows that you had asked the previous bureaucrat a desire to be promoted. His response was whether or not if there was a community consensus. His simple criterion to give a user a bureaucrat status is if there is community consensus. In other words, his decision was contingent on what he perceived as open support from the community and it is a precedent I seek to maintain. What we have today is not consensual. What does this mean and why is this important? We need to first ask ourselves, what really is the purpose for Viva to become a bureaucrat when it is nothing more than an administrator (of which he already is) with the additional responsibility of promoting or demoting administrators (or bureaucrats in this instance)? If we need more administrators, you don't need two bureaucrats to make that happen. If we need to remove a disruptive administrator, you don't need two to make that happen either. So then, what are other possible reasons we would need for another a bureaucrat? To make final decisions? A safeguard? Against what? Any major decision on the wiki naturally requires community input, and as a bureaucrat, I hold myself accountable to listening to and honoring the will of the community and my fellow colleagues in the wiki administration. If there is fear of overstepping my power, then it should be called out and I shall make amends to redress it. However, we need an arbiter, especially when the wiki is still by-and-by a small, albeit growing community. Interpersonal conflicts and disputes, although infrequent, have arisen on the wiki, which requires meditation and decision. There is no doubt, in my mind, that the majority of disputes will arise in collaborative projects, of which only one (Project Genesis), where the majority of the active participants, here, (myself and Viva included) are involved in. Within the project, Viva and I have acknowledged each other as co-creators, and we have worked harmoniously, delegating responsibilities and pursuits with the project. The revival of the project has contributed to increased activity among users, both old and new, and for that, a very blessed moment for our wiki. However, I do not see how there would be any difference to this state of affairs if Viva became bureaucrat. He can run by many decisions without requiring my input just fine as I tend to agree or oblige to his sentiments. I think many who know me would fine that I am (annoyingly) agreeable and supportive towards people here. I have treated the status as bureaucrat as a first-among-equals in terms of administration, and have not used my power to abuse or intimidate my colleagues, which would give these concerns much more weight and urgency to address had it not been the case. At this time, having two bureaucrats is needless and meddlesome, especially when the status quo has worked just fine without significant incident that points towards a need for more bureaucrats. If this is a contingency plan for the fear I may one day leave the wiki, then that shouldn't be a concern now, as I have no intention to leave this wiki at all in the foreseeable future, nor would it be doomsday if I did. If I were planning to leave, I would most certainly let the wiki community know far in advance before I went inactive, and even if my departure were sudden, Wikia staff would willingly promote a new bureaucrat when they are shown consensus and that there are no more active bureaucrats. I once again want to reiterate that a bureaucrat is nothing more than an administrator with the distinction to create or remove other administrators. Such a power, when in the right hands, is used sparingly and only out of necessity, but also serves the role in affirming bureaucrats' ability to arbitrate and lead a community. But as I said before, many decisions I have left it open for my colleagues to discuss and criticize. Really, the only instances when a bureaucrat must make a unilateral decision by virtue of their role, is for matters expressly like this. In every other case, I seek to work with and respect the decisions of not just my fellow administrators, but our fellow users. As the arbiter, I have failed to see this practically evenly-split vote as indicative of consensus. I am also concerned with election rigging (on both sides), due to the high incidence of guest users voting in this decision. We are not ready, but we are nearing it. I believe in due time, as the community indeed grows and more people arise to distinguish themselves, we will certainly need more people to lead and manage the community. I have no doubt in my mind, in the next consensus, when that pressing need is realized, candidates such as Viva will be clearer and more affirmative. [[User:Centrist16| ]] 19:17, February 18, 2018 (UTC) *I must contest the unilateral decision to end the vote. You stated that TM asked if a consensus had been established to promote me to bureaucrat, however, as you well know, the community was rather lacking in terms of active members. Not more than a month later, you yourself had likewise asked for the same rights, and held a vote under the exact same circumstances as today, and presented them to TM. You are arguing based on semantics, not the simple fact that an equally simple majority vote would have to be held to establish consensus. And let's not pretend that the term "consensus" is the actual terminology used to determine the type of vote that was just held. The term has only been used three times before; the first time a simple majority vote, and the second-time a simple majority vote, and the third time another majority vote. You and Goldentrash simple copied the title from the first vote, and used it again for your own votes, since we hadn't had any other elections on the form with a uniform title for the election of another administrator or bureaucrat. We all know that the meaning of the word "consensus" was not what entered your minds when you used it. To pretend that all of a sudden the democratic means of electing a new admin or bureaucrat disappears because you now what to incorporate the definition of "consensus", is quite ludicrous if I politely may say so. :While you speak of the one-time editors who supported me, you ignore the fact that prior to their voting, you had and knew of, three one-time voters (Nate, Sky, and Rimp) who had no doubt been coxed into voting against me. And not long after that, you had Oct and Fires, also guest users, vote against me. So that is a vastly greater instance of guest users appearing out of nowhere in opposition than in support. If we, for the sake of argument, removed all of the users tagged as "new editor" from the vote, that leaves the outcome as nine in favor and six opposed to me becoming a bureaucrat. That appears to be a clear decision by the community you yourself stated had to come to a positive conclusion as to the election of a new moderator. So even without the guest users, the community's decision is abundantly clear. Furthermore, you stated in private and away from the community, that the vote should last a week rather than achieving a plurality of the vote, stating that this was also "tradition", even though this had only been the case twice in the past, again, only for you and for Goldentrash. In all other cases, a simple majority was required, and time was never a consideration. You've attempted to change the rules based your own decisions or "traditions" which had never existed. It should be pointed out that, in your own election, you decided how long the vote would last, with no prior example of this taking place. With all the prior elections, no date had ever been provided as to when an election should come to an end. :As for the argument as to the number of active bureaucrats on the wiki, Conworlds has always had multiple bureaucrats operating at the same time, regardless as to the personal views to their rights. Your only argument against this is that we only need one at any given time, even though that has never been a valid argument in the past. As stated earlier, the community makes the decision as to whether or not they want a new one, and so far, they have voted in favor of a new bureaucrat. While I certainly do not discount your personal reservations in opposition of a new bureaucrat, I cannot support it on the grounds that it appears the argument is made more on what you feel is needed rather than what the community feels is needed. You may believe your absence is not a concern for the community, but the people voting in favor do not agree with that sentiment, and want another bureaucrat for their own concerns rather than those you hold yourself. So as to wrap up my objection to the decision: Conworlds has always been a democracy, and the title of the page the vote is being held on means nothing; I have achieved a clear majority in the vote of those long-time or consistent users desiring my promotion to bureaucrat; and this wiki has always had multiple bureaucrats as a means to balancing one another and offering additional sources of arbitration rather than centralizing it under a single user. :The vote itself has been decided in my favor, and in line with the numerous elections aside from the two you pointed too, my promotion is mandatory rather than optional. Consensus has been reached by the community, and the answer is "Yes". Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 22:23, February 18, 2018 (UTC)